Sedition Law (Section 124 A) - Antiquity in a modern state?

Sedition Act was conceived by the British in 1870s to quell the rising dissent fuelled by Wahhabi movements in India. Subsequently the act was used liberally against a variety of Nationalist leaders like Tilak, whose speeches were measured against the Act’s description of inciting violence, hatred and disobedience. Despite objections in the Assembly, Section 124 A was never removed from IPC, even as the Fundamental Rights to free speech were tempered with restrictions described as ‘reasonable’. Challenged at the highest level in the case of ‘Kedar Nath’, SC upheld the constitutionality of Sedition while subsequent rulings in similar cases sought to make the test of Sedition more stringent.

The invocation of Sedition in many cases seems to suggest a pattern of criminality beings assigned to dissenters who air views at odds with National Interest and Nationalism. So it can be trotted out for possession of membership of banned groups, an article written in support of Naxals or for calls for mobilisation on caste reservation issue. The test laid for Sedition by our courts differentiate between ‘Advocacy’ and ‘Incitement’, in other words the link between the suggestion of “Sedition” and the act that follows be akin to a match lit in a powdered keg. The formulation of Sedition as inciting disaffection and hatred towards ‘Government’ is also problematic. This was formulated in Colonial Era when ‘State’ and ‘Government’ were one and same. In independent India, State and Government have different identities which can make the Law antiquated.

Leaving aside the text-act relationship, the quelling of speech itself is question worth asking in a Constitutional Democracy like India. If we put aside the impracticality of ‘Anti-National’ sentiments for a moment, outlawing mere expression of an idea at odds with Nationalistic narrative is mutilation of Free Speech ideals and not too far from the ‘thought crime’ narrative of ‘1984’.

The recent case of ‘Shreya Singhal vs Union of India’ had demonstrated the boundaries of ‘restrictions’ as envisioned in the Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Similar provisions across the world have either been recanted (UK) or tested against ‘clear and present danger’ (US). The unique contextual history of India may have necessitated the continuation of this act post Independence, but decades of existence has lent the Union of India enough strength to bear criticism without quashing it. There is an urgent need to debate the continued existence of Section 124A of IPC in today’s times.

By: Navdeep Jakhar